The Video Game Revue

Game Design - Using Limitations

When one looks at what makes a given game compelling or unique, one often points to that game's features. GTA lets you steal cars. Mirror's Edge provides a free-running system. Portal lets you break one of the laws of physics with a new tech. However, games are also often defined as much by what they don't do or don't allow as by what they do.

A simple example of this are the different game modes in Geometry Wars 2. Underneath all of these modes is the same core game: you fly in one direction, shoot in another direction, and try to survive while racking up points. What makes each mode different is the set of limitations that it places on the player. In Deadline, you get unlimited lives but only three minutes to build up your score. In King, you can only shoot when you are in certain zones. In Pacifism, you can't shoot at all. These limitations sculpt the core game into specific, worthwhile challenges.

In the past, I've tried to defend the position that Resident Evil 4 isn't really an FPS, and one of the arguments that I've used is about the limitations that RE4 places on the player. The control scheme of RE4 isn't a "broken FPS" control scheme--it is different by design. RE4 presents a combat system where moving while shooting is extremely difficult, if not impossible. The game also emphasizes exploration and resource management over action.

Somebody who is critical of RE4 might point out that a crippling control scheme is an arbitrary challenge. What is to stop somebody from, say, making it impossible to shoot while moving in Unreal Tournament III and call that a new game mode? What indeed. I would argue that essentially all video game challenges are arbitrary. What's the point of shooting things in UT3, RE4, or Geometry Wars 2 at all? The real question isn't whether or not the challenge is arbitrary; it's whether or not the challenge is fun.

Personally, I find Resident Evil 4 to be extremely fun. I don't play it for the same reasons that I play Unreal Tournament or Counter-Strike at all. Right from the very beginning of the Resident Evil franchise, I've taken the games for what they are rather than what they're not. A comparison against RE4 and FPS games didn't even occur to me until other gamers I know brought it up.

It's important to recognize that criticizing a game for what it doesn't provide isn't always rational. What matters is whether or not the game is more fun because of its limitations, and on that issue there will tend to be a lot of disagreement. One of the reasons that video games are so diverse is because players look to get different experiences out of them. A limitation placed on the player may be the very thing that shapes the game into something worthwhile.

posted by Parappa @ 1:46 PM